Are We Who We Think We Are: Evaluating BrandPromise at a Liberal-Arts Institution

Jacci L. Rodgers & Michael W. Jackson

Published online: 21 April 2011# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract For this research we developed a series of questions for students at a small,private, not-for-profit institution in order to determine whether or not the students’perceptions match what the institution believes itself to be as expressed in its brand promisestatement. We examined whether or not the institution’s marketing and its brand helpstudents form a perception that matches reality. Results show that incoming freshmenstudents, the same students at the end of the first year, and also exiting seniors perceived theinstitution consistently and in accordance with its brand promise. Results help to informrecruiting strategies and strategic planning.

Key words Brand promise . Higher education marketing . Student perceptions

There are clear differences among institutional mission, vision, and brand promisestatements in higher education. All colleges and universities have an overarching missionstatement of ambition or purpose, whether explicitly stated or not. Often these statementsare long and broad in expression, reminding all of what the entity is and why it endures.Mission statements have been described as defining the physical, political, and socialcontexts of existence within an historical text (Abelman et al. 2007; Banta et al. 1995,

Innov High Educ (2012) 37:153–166DOI 10.1007/s10755-011-9187-7

Jacci L. Rodgers received her Ph.D. in Accounting from the University of Oklahoma. She serves as chair ofthe Accounting and Information Technology department and as the Faculty Liaison for Assessment atOklahoma City University. She is a Certified Public Accountant and Certified Management Accountant andspecializes in cost and management accounting with a special emphasis on quality issues. She serves as anOklahoma Quality Award Examiner.

Michael W. Jackson received his M.S. in College Teaching, Student Personnel Services from NortheasternState University. He serves as senior director of institutional research and assessment with additionalresponsibilities for accreditation and strategic planning at Oklahoma City University. His research interestsinclude sociometry, ethnography, public policy analysis, and organizational performance and effectiveness.

J. L. Rodgers (*) :M. W. JacksonOklahoma City University, 2501 N. Blackwelder, Oklahoma City, OK 73106, USAe-mail: jrodgers@okcu.edu

M. W. Jacksone-mail: mjackson@okcu.edu

Bryson 2004; Marom 2003). The mission statement of the institution serves as arecruitment element (Kirp 2003) for the public at large. An institution’s vision statementis related to the mission, yet independent thereof; and frequently it is a loftier statement.Vision statements express the compelling, discrete, and rational desires for enhancing thequality of higher education (Abelman et al. 2007).

The Concept of Branding

Branding, once associated only with the business world, has become a common feature ofoperation and attention for higher education institutions within the last few years (Waeraasand Solbakk 2009). As colleges and universities adjust to a customer driven model, theprestige of the institution becomes closely tied to its brand. A recent commentary in theonline edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education (Carey 2010, para. 16) argued thatinstitutional branding is now being used as “largely an illusion for which students routinelyoverpay.” Image may be considered an external portrayal of the brand of the institution. Theinstitutional brand becomes the promise made to all of its customers (Eich 2006). Brandpromise statements are expressions of what customers, students, and their parents shouldexpect through consistent interaction. At our institution, a branding exercise was conductedthat involved students, faculty, staff, and administrators. Using several iterations, a brandwas created that captured what these groups believed the essence of the institution to be,which is what a brand promise is intended to express. For the purpose of this research, wewill share our institution’s brand promise although it is not meant to be publicly disclosed,but rather used as a guide for advertising and marketing, among other things. Our brandpromise is: “…a supportive university of challenge and opportunity for students who havethe courage to follow their heart and develop their talent as they prepare for success.” Anefficient brand captures the ambitions, distinguishing mission, and strengths of aninstitution, while attracting the interests and motivations of the customer base (Artsci2008). Constituent expectations about the institution are developed through multipleexperiences with the institution, which should then result in a deep and ongoing relationship(Davis and Dunn 2002; Marketing Leadership Council 2001). These expectations become apromise by the institution (in this case, the college or university) to its customers (for thisresearch, its students), which demonstrates that it values them and the relationship and uniqueinteraction they have (Wheatley 2002). The ultimate goal of the institution is to deliver whatthe brand promises (Sevier 2007). If this occurs, the result is a level of loyalty which benefitsall; and the power of the brand promise will keep the customer engaged with the institution(Wheatley 2002).

The brand interaction must first create meaning in relation to the brand promise. Inparticular, the experience must be memorable to the consumer. These experiencesaccumulate as memories that influence future decisions and opinions regarding theinstitution. Next, the interaction must be personal in nature, emphasizing individual choice.Finally, the interaction should be multidimensional, meaning that the involvement must beengaging, participatory, and creating sensory stimulation (Wheatley 2002).

It is important to note that branding is usually described even in educational settingswith business terms because it derived from the business world. Indeed, marketing is usedto attract potential new students to an institution in much the same way it is used in thebusiness sector to entice people to purchase a new product. However, students are not reallycustomers in the same sense. Each product purchased through a business setting is oftenidentical to other products, e.g., a toaster; but the educational product purchased by a

154 Innov High Educ (2012) 37:153–166

student is necessarily individualized. Further, the typical business customer knows exactlywhat is being purchased and for what purpose whereas a student is buying an educationalsetting and environment that can be seen; but much of the educational product is intangibleand unknown. Each toaster one might purchase of the same style and make is identicalwhereas each degree earned, while ostensibly the same, is really based on each student’sexperience and is highly individualized because of factors both within and beyond thestudent’s control. Thus, to think of students as customers of an institution, at least in thesense of product-oriented businesses, can be problematic. Our research considered studentsas customers during the phase of the relationship when they are acting like consumers, thatis, when they are using the marketing of the school to help determine if they want to “buy”the experience being offered. We then measured whether the student, who had “bought” theexperience and the educational product by enrolling, has perceptions of the school thatmatch what the school believes it is “selling.”

Individuals should not confuse brand promise with the institution’s marketing tag line.Tag lines are memorable phrases such as, “You’ll love the person you become here”(University Business 2008, p. 47), or “Uncommon success begins at… (HMR PublicationsGroup 2009). These tag lines are part of the marketing and advertisement campaignstargeting the entering class. In contrast, a brand promise, although defined and articulatedinternally, is not publically expressed. It summarizes the mission and vision of theinstitution and is used as reference to create marketing materials of various types. Althoughit is not publicly stated, it crystallizes what the institution believes itself to be and what itoffers to students and other constituents and, as such, creates a silent and behind-the-scenes“promise” of what will be delivered. The brand promise both motivates and serves as thebasis of the marketing campaign, which is the external realization of the statement carriedin the brand promise. What students and other constituents depend on is that the marketingcampaign, which was developed based upon the brand promise, accurately conveyed whatthe student would experience.

As institutions develop brands and branding strategies, research on the concept shouldcontribute to the body of literature that considers admissions marketing and recruitment.Effective marketing that presents a valid representation of the institution can be enhancedby understanding how students choose colleges (Anctil 2008). Further, Helgesen (2008)found that student loyalty is positively related to perception of the institution’s quality.

Eich (2006) stated that, “…a good reputation goes hand in hand with a university’sbrand, which in essence is the promise the institution makes to all…” (p. 13). Since brandpromises are not shared outside the institution, it is difficult for those outside to determine ifthe promise was kept. So, what if the brand the institution projects through its marketing isnot perceived by constituents in the way intended? Should the brand be changed? Shouldthe institution change to meet the perceptions provoked by the brand? Does the differencelead to a waste of resources, including lower admission rates and retention of students?

Literature Review

Members of an engaged organization must understand the culture and common premise ofall the constituents interacting with the organizational environment (Wilson 2006). Allpersons who interact with the institution have a relationship with the environment:“Organizations and the individuals who populate them are suspended in a web of values,norms, rules, beliefs, … assumptions” (Barley and Tolbert 1997, p. 93). The expressions,information, mutual comprehension, and trust are shared by all (Bensimon and Neumann

Innov High Educ (2012) 37:153–166 155

1993; Detert et al. 2000; Gallant 2007; Kuh and Whitt 1988; Schein 1992; Smirich 1983).The importance of these attributes is not limited to the employees of the institution, butinclude the student customers and visitors as well.

Institutions of higher education are designed to provide students with opportunities—both in the classroom and in other venues—to develop ideas and beliefs that change theirbehaviors, values, and possibly the careers and personal directions they have chosen. Goingto college is meant to be transformational. The transformation occurs through formallearning and in extracurricular, living, and informal social situations (Wheatley 2002). Thischange is grounded in the academic interactions the student has with teachers and peerswithin the educational framework of the school at large, and more specifically, theparticular program of study that the student pursues.

Some believe that new freshmen students are “clueless about their school’s valuesand expectations” (Baldwin 2005, p.9). The challenge of educational institutions is tofocus the general feeling of expectancy and belief of new students about how theyperceive their academic and environmental setting, as well as their “own relationship totheir…institution” (Abelman et al. 2007, p. 9). Researchers agree that institutions ofhigher education should strongly position student customer and institutional perspectives(Abelman et al. 2007).

Wheatley (2002) defined the creation of a strong brand as a binary process includingdefining and delivering the brand promise experience. Obviously, this perception,ultimately, is relevant to retention issues. Tinto (2006) addressed the need to considermultiple methods of education based on socio-economic status in order to increase studentpersistence. Our study stepped back in the process by evaluating whether the highereducation institution is perceived to be what it thinks it is and whether that perceptionpersists as students continue.

The Study

We investigated the brand promise of a small, private, liberal arts university as perceived byfirst-time, first-year students in a pre-post test format (from orientation week in the fallsemester to the last week of classes in the spring semester). We also explored theperceptions of the undergraduate exiting senior population of the same year. This wasrepeated over a two year period. Specifically, this research addressed the followingquestions:

& Do incoming students perceive the institution as the institution perceives itself asdemonstrated by its brand promise statement?

& Does the perception of the institution by incoming freshmen students persist throughouttheir first year as the students learn more about the institution through daily interaction?

& Do exiting seniors, after multiple years of interaction, perceive the institution in thesame way as do freshmen students and as the institution perceives itself?

Rather than considering the brand as a tool to optimize institutional performance, asdiscussed by Carey (2010), our research was designed to consider how the brand affectsstudent perception of the institution rather than the institution’s choice of marketing. Webelieve that knowing whether what the brand intended is what is perceived by students withessentially no background (new freshmen) and seeking to understand what is experiencedby students through daily interaction can help institutions as they create marketing andother materials for recruitment.

156 Innov High Educ (2012) 37:153–166

The Instrument

A survey that consisted of a series of five, compound sentences, each with two blanks wasdeveloped to capture students’ beliefs about the institution. The survey, consisting of theseincomplete sentences, was administered together with another survey, the Institutional CulturalSurvey (ICS) (Oklahoma City University 2007). All components of the ICS and the brandsurvey are part of the University assessment process and are University approved. Questionsare vetted through the University Assessment Council. The surveys were administered by theDepartment of Institutional Research and Assessment. The sentences are:

& (The name of the university) is a {component a}university that {component b}forstudents.

& (The name of the university) is a{component a}university for students who{component b}.

& (The name of the university) is a {component a}university for students that{component b}.

& (The name of the university) is a{component a}university for students of{component b}.& (The name of the university) is a{component a}university for {component b}

students.

It was appropriate to administer the two surveys together since the ICS contains sectionsdevoted to measuring awareness of some of the intangible aspects of the University. Theseaspects and others specifically included university mission, liberal arts knowledge, strategicplanning initiatives, and brand promise. Questions dealing with brand promise weredesigned to mirror previous work in developing the actual statement of values for theinstitution.

Data Collection

Each subject completed all sentences on the paper survey. Subjects were not limited in thenumber of words used for each blank. Entering freshmen completed the survey duringorientation week when their perceptions of the University were largely based on themarketing and campus visit(s) prior to enrollment. The same students completed the surveyagain at the end of the spring semester when their perceptions were based on nine monthsof daily personal experiences within the University environment through coursework,extracurricular activities, and (in many cases) housing and food service interactions. Exitingsenior students also completed the survey. Their perception of the institution was based onone to six years of personal contact with the University. Data were collected during the2007–2008 and 2008–2009 academic years.

Participant Statistics

Freshmen were required to participate in the survey as part of the orientation weekactivities. However, there were no consequences, stated or real, of not participating. Therewere 252 responses to the first administration of the survey, representing approximately63% of the 2007 entering freshman population. The second administration to freshmen, atthe end of the spring semester was voluntary. The survey, including a return envelope, wasdistributed in Composition classes. A total of 75 individuals, representing 19% of the 2007entering population, participated in the second administration in spring 2008. Graduatingseniors were given exit senior surveys as part of the normal graduation process. Survey

Innov High Educ (2012) 37:153–166 157

instruments were given to deans/department chairs for distribution to identified graduatingstudents. The surveys included a modified version of the ICS, dealing with brand promiseonly, this branding survey, and the Senior Survey instrument (Oklahoma City University2003). Surveys are administered to graduating seniors during the last month of the springsemester. For this population this was the first exposure to assessment of the brand promiseof the University.

All graduating seniors for the spring 2008 term, 482 individuals, received surveys. Onehundred sixty-eight individuals, representing 35% of the exiting senior population,participated. Data collection methods in the second year were the same for all threeadministrations of the survey. For the second year of data collection, a total of 236individuals, representing approximately 63% of the 2008 entering population for thefreshman class, participated in the survey. For the spring 2009 term, 102 individuals,representing approximately 26% of the entering 2008 freshman population, and 125seniors, totaling 29% of the graduating class, completed the survey.

Analysis

The data were entered into a database, which allowed the researchers to isolate thecollective responses for each sentence. The data for the individual response elements foreach sentence were categorized through a two-cycle process. The first cycle used anelemental methods approach (Saldaña 2009). Participants’ words or word phrases werecategorized by frequency. The first round coding was examined in the second round coding,using pattern coding to combine appropriate like constructs (Saldaña 2009). As with thefirst round of coding, frequency was again measured, producing a rank order of code frommost represented to least. This type of qualitative research using content analysis andfrequency processes has been documented as a valid course of action for educationalresearch (Denzin 1989; Lincoln and Guba 1985; Mason 1996; Merriam 1998).

Results

Tables I, II, III, IV and V provide the primary (most frequent), secondary, and tertiaryresponses to each of the five sentences. Responses are organized by freshman pre-test,

Table I Question One Responses for Freshmen and Seniors

Prompt: Ranking “XXX Universityis a _____ university”

“that _______ for students.”

Year PreFreshmen

PostFreshmen

Seniors Pre Freshmen Post Freshmen Seniors

‘07–‘08 1st Choice Great Great Great Cares Cares/Works Works

2nd Choice Small Good Small Works Is helpful Provides

3rd Choice Private Small Good Providesopportunities

Is good/createsopportunities/ismotivated

Cares

‘08–‘09 1st Choice Small Great Great Provides Cares Cares

2nd Choice Great Small Small Cares Provides Provides

3rd Choice Private Good Good/Diverse Cooks Cooks/is great Works

158 Innov High Educ (2012) 37:153–166

Tab

leII

QuestionTw

oRespo

nses

forFreshmen

andSeniors

Prompt:

Ranking

“XXX

University

isa___

university”

“for

stud

entswho

____

___.”

Year

Pre

Freshmen

PostFreshmen

Seniors

Pre

Freshmen

PostFreshmen

Seniors

‘07–

‘08

1stCho

ice

Great

Great

Great

Wantto

learn

Likes

thearts

Wantto

learn

2ndChoice

Goo

dGoo

dGoo

dWantto

succeed

Dance

Willingto

work

3rdChoice

Perfect

Small

Perfect

Dance

Wantto

learn

Wantindividu

alattention

‘08–

‘09

1stCho

ice

Great

Great

Great

Lov

esthearts

Doperformingart

Wantto

learn

2ndChoice

Good

Challenging

Good

Wantto

learn

Workhard

Wantto

succeed

3rdChoice

Perfect

Awesom

eExcellent

Wantto

succeed

Wantto

learn

Wantasm

allscho

ol

Innov High Educ (2012) 37:153–166 159

Tab

leIII

QuestionThree

Respo

nses

forFreshmen

andSeniors

Prompt:

Ranking

“XXX

University

isa__

___un

iversity”

“for

stud

entsthat

______

_.”

Year

Pre

Freshmen

PostFreshmen

Seniors

Pre

Freshmen

PostFreshmen

Seniors

‘07–‘08

1stChoice

Good

Great/Good

Bad/Good

Dance

Likethearts

Wantpersonal

attention

2ndChoice

Great

Perfect

Great

Wantto

succeed

Wantto

learn

Likesm

allclasses

3rdCho

ice

Won

derful

Bad

Perfect/Small

Work

Succeed

Wantto

succeed/Have

scholarshipmon

ey

‘08–‘09

1stChoice

Goo

dGreat

Bad

Wantto

learn

Likethearts

Diverse

2ndChoice

Won

derful

Topno

tch

Excellent

Lovethearts

Wantto

learn

Are

intheperforming

arts/W

antthebest

3rdCho

ice

Perfect

Goo

dGoo

dWantsm

allscho

ol/W

ant

tosucceed

Workhard

Lov

eto

learn

160 Innov High Educ (2012) 37:153–166

Tab

leIV

QuestionFourRespo

nses

forFreshmen

andSeniors

Prompt:

Ranking

“XXX

University

isa__

___un

iversity”

“for

stud

entsof

____

___.”

Year

Pre

Freshmen

PostFreshmen

Seniors

Pre

Freshmen

PostFreshmen

Seniors

‘07–

‘08

1stChoice

Diverse

Good

Great/Diverse

Allraces

Different

backgrounds

Different

backgrounds

2ndChoice

Good

Good

Good

Different

backgrounds

Allraces

Different

cultu

res

3rdChoice

Great

Diverse

Welcoming/Wonderful

Different

cultu

res

Different

cultu

res

Allraces

‘08–

‘09

1stChoice

Diverse

Diverse

Good

Different

backgrounds

Different

cultu

res

Different

backgrounds

2ndChoice

Great

Great/Good

Diverse

Allraces

Allraces

Perform

ingarts

3rdChoice

Good

Excellent/Wonderful

Great

Different

cultu

res

Different

backgrounds

Allraces

Innov High Educ (2012) 37:153–166 161

freshman post-test, and senior survey. Year one responses are in the upper portion of eachtable, year two responses are in the bottom portion. A quick scan of the responses showsthat a consistent interpretation of the institution’s brand promise exists, as assessed by thissample. The sample approximately reflects the composition of the overall student body.There is some fluctuation in order of frequency for several of the items (example: Table IV,component A). Levels within the table were determined by the response frequency. Thoseelements which had the highest frequency in the coding process were labeled as primary.The traits receiving the second highest frequency counts were categorized as secondary,those with the third highest frequencies were labeled tertiary.

Although the responses are consistent overall, there are some interesting transitionsevident in the results. Table I shows the first incident of slang (year two “cooks”) enteringthe responses. The year one freshmen responses and all senior responses were more formal.Although not tested, this might signify a level of comfort with the process, the institution,or a generally less formal approach by this cohort of students. Tables II and III show thatthe strong dance and music programs on this campus are recognized by students even asthey enter, and more so after a year of residency. This is important to note because over60% of the entering freshmen are Arts and Science majors, rather than Fine Arts majors.Further, this recognition seems to have dissipated by the senior year. The strength of theseprograms certainly did not weaken over this period; rather we believe that they are sopervasive that by the senior year students no longer recognize them as a unique feature ofthe campus community. Table III also seems to show that seniors are starting to be aware ofthe cost of their education.

Table IV shows strong recognition of the international and minority studentpopulations on this campus. There is an international perspective in many programs,and 27% of resident students in 2007–2008 were non-U.S. citizens. Minority studentscomprised 17% of the campus population. In 2008–2009 the percentage was 26 whileother ethnic minority categories collectively totaled 18%. This recognition persists intothe senior year. Finally, Table V again shows the consistency of answers across pre- andpost- subjects, seniors, and cohort groups. It appears that the brand that is initiallyperceived is consistent with what is experienced. Further, the responses are consistentwith the actual brand of the university.

The responses can be directly tied to the research questions presented in the introductionof this paper. Incoming students do perceive the institution as the institution perceives itself,

Table V Question Five Responses for Freshmen and Seniors

Prompt: Ranking “XXX University is a _____ university” “for _______ students.”

Year PreFreshmen

PostFreshmen

Seniors PreFreshmen

PostFreshmen

Seniors

‘07–‘08 1st Choice Great Good Great All All All

2nd Choice Good Great Good Dedicated Hard working Dedicated/Motivated

3rd Choice Wonderful Challenging Wonderful Friendly/Music

Friendly/Intelligent

Superior/working

‘08–‘09 1st Choice Great Excellent Great All All All

2nd Choice Good Great Good Determined Hardworking/Excellent

Diverse

3rd Choice Wonderful Artistic Challenging Smart Smart/Talented Amazing

162 Innov High Educ (2012) 37:153–166

as demonstrated by its brand promise statement. The perception of the institution byincoming freshmen students persists throughout their first year as the students learnmore about the institution through daily interaction. Exiting seniors, after multiple yearsof interaction, perceive the institution in the same way freshmen students do, and alsoin the same way that the institution perceives itself. Rather than being generallyunaware about the institution as Baldwin (2005) found, students are in fact able todiscern the values of the institution correctly as they enter a relationship with it. Theperception persists throughout the active relationship. This research supports the literatureon higher education branding cited above (Abelman et al. 2007; Tinto 2006) and providesa method that can be easily used by any institution to determine how its brand isperceived by its students.

We used a pre- and post-test for freshmen, along with a survey of the exiting seniors,because more than a student’s entering perception is important. If, after one year ofinteraction, students have changed their perceptions of the institution, it could mean that theinitial brand projected was misleading. It could also mean that the brand was misperceived.In either case, if students are not happy with the institution as it is perceived at the end oftheir first year of study, they may decide to change institutions, which negatively affectsretention rates. If exiting seniors do not perceive the institution as the institution perceivesitself, it may lessen the loyalty of alumnae.

Limitations

The administration of the five-sentence survey as a pre-test was advertised as a requiredevent for all first-time, first-year students during the orientation weeks of 2007–2008 and2008–2009. Even though the events were advertised as required, there was no enforcementor repercussions for those individuals who did not attend. Similarly, the post-test surveywas conducted through distribution within freshmen courses. Students were asked toparticipate in the survey, without enforcement or repercussion for non-attendance.Participation for the spring 2008 and 2009 graduating senior populations was at the freewill of those participating. Since participation was voluntary, the response rates were low.That said, however, both freshmen and senior participants generally reflected thedemographic structure of the student population as a whole.

Discussion

Distinguishing identity strength can be helpful for institutions that have highly recognizedprograms to help smooth the marketing emphasis and entrance to the school as a whole forall students. Other interesting, and valuable information comes from the comparison offreshman and senior responses. Information in Table IV suggests that entering freshmen andgraduating seniors have similar, often identical, primary responses. This data supports theidea that the message conveyed by the institution during recruitment is one that is consistentwith the ongoing experiences of the students who choose to enroll and remain. It can alsohelp explain the moderately higher than average retention rate that the University has,which is at 80.6% (Oklahoma City University 2009), while the national figure for four-year,private, non-profit institutions was at 78.3% (National Center for Higher EducationManagement Systems 2010) for the 2006 comparison period. Prior to 2002, the Universityhad a low retention rate of 67%. It appears that students now are better informed about what

Innov High Educ (2012) 37:153–166 163

to expect from the University, choose it because of those expectations, and thus are morelikely to stay because what they expect turns out to be true.

Finally, all the tables support the constancy of the message received by potential studentsduring recruiting across (at least) two years. This type of data could be helpful if schools arein the process of changing their recruiting material and efforts. By piloting the material andthen administering this instrument or a similar one, one could measure whether or not thenew message is consistent with the image the institution wants to portray. Image may beconsidered an external portrayal of the brand of the institution.

The final point of interest comes from a comparison of the perception of the studentswith the actual brand promise of the institution. For the purpose of reporting this research,we have shared this institution’s brand promise with readers, who should remember that abrand promise is not meant to be publicly disclosed, but rather used as a guide foradvertising and marketing, among other things. As can be seen by comparing the brandpromise of this institution stated above, with the results reported in Tables , I, II, III, IV andV, the message perceived is consistent with the image intended. A dilemma would exist ifthe message perceived were not consistent. At that point an institution would have a seriesof difficult questions to address:

& Are we who we think we are?& Do we want to be who the students think we are?& Do we need to change who the students think we are?& Do we need to change our brand promise (and possibly our mission and vision)?

This study allowed the institution to measure quickly and inexpensively whether ornot its brand was being perceived accurately by the constituent group most targeted—potential and incoming freshmen students. It further measured whether the perceivedbrand persisted as students became more aware of and involved in the institution. Thisinformation helps inform retention efforts. This study also evaluated the accumulativeperception of the senior population. In essence, we assessed whether or not theinstitution is consistent in its articulated vision and mission through the brand promiseand whether or not the perception persists throughout the undergraduate experience.The ability to measure such intangible elements provides support for resource allocationand continued strategic planning.

Future Research and Conclusion

This research is replicable by any institution and can be useful in determining the strengthof the brand promise. We are now expanding it to include faculty, staff, and alumni in orderto determine the strength of brand among all interacting groups of the institution. We thenplan to survey external constituents and community members not directly associated withthe institution. Each of these groups provides important resources, not just financial ones, tothe institution. Knowledge of how each group perceives the institution is important indeveloping marketing and targeted correspondence. Finally, efforts to link the survey resultsdirectly to retention data are ongoing.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the editor; reviewers; the attendees of the AmericanAssociation of Behavioral and Social Sciences; and the attendees of the International Conference onKnowledge, Culture, and Change in Organizations who provided helpful comments on this research. Also,we thank Dr. Joseph L. Rodgers for editing and providing critical comments.

164 Innov High Educ (2012) 37:153–166

References

Abelman, R., Dalessandro, A., Janstova, P., & Snyder-Suhy, S. (2007). Institutional vision at proprietaryschools: Advising for profit. NACADA Journal, 27(2), 9–27.

Anctil, E. J. (2008). Selling higher education: Marketing and advertising America’s colleges and universities.ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Artsci. (2008). Branding and positioning. Retrieved from www.artsci.com/consultingbrand.htmBaldwin, A. (2005). The community college experience. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.Banta, T., Lund, J., Black, K., & Oblander, F. (1995). Assessment in practice: Putting principles to work on

college campuses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Barley, S., & Tolbert, P. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and

institution. Organization Studies, 18(1), 93–117.Bensimon, E. M., & Neumann, A. (1993). A different way to think about leadership teams: Teams as

cultures. In E. M. Bensimon & A. Neumann (Eds.), Redesigning collegiate leadership: Teams andteamwork in higher education (pp. 15–31). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bryson, S. M. (2004). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengtheningand sustaining organizational achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Carey, K. (2010, June 6). The chimera of college brands. The Chronicle of Higher Education. RetrievedAugust 20, 2010, from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Chimera-of-College-Brands/65764

Davis, S., & Dunn, M. (2002). Building the brand-driven business: Operationalize your brand to driveprofitable growth. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Detert, J. R., Schroeder, R. G., & Mauriel, J. J. (2000). A framework for linking culture and improvement

initiatives in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 850–863.Eich, R. K. (2006). Your reputation precedes you. Trusteeship, 14(3), 13–17.Gallant, T. B. (2007). The complexity of integrity culture change: A case study of a liberal arts college. The

Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 391–411.Helgesen, O. (2008). Marketing for higher education: A relationship marketing approach. Journal of

Marketing for Higher Education, 18(1), 50–78.HMR Publications Group (2009). 24th Annual higher education marketing yearbook. Retrieved September 10,

2010 from http://www.hmrpublicationsgroup.com/Higher_Ed_Marketing_Report/hemr_yearbooks.htmlKirp, D. L. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein, and the bottom line: The marketing of higher education.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The invisible tapestry: Culture in American colleges and universities.

ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of HigherEducation.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Marketing Leadership Council. (2001). Measuring marketing performance: Results of council survey.

Washington, DC: Marketing Leadership Council.Marom, D. (2003). Before the gates of school: An experiment in developing educational vision from

practice. In S. Fox, I. Scheffler, & D. Marom (Eds.), Vision of Jewish education (pp. 296–298).Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded

from case study research in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. (2010). Progress and completion: Retention

rates - first-time college freshmen returning their second year. Retrieved September 10, 2010. Fromhttp://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?level=&mode=definitions&state=0&submeasure=224

Oklahoma City University. (2003). Senior survey. Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma City University.Oklahoma City University. (2007). Institutional culture survey. Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma City

University.Oklahoma City University. (2009). Retention to graduation – 1995 to 2008. Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma

City University.Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Sevier, R. A. (2007). Delivering on your brand experience. University Business, 11(12), 34–36.Smirich, L. (1983). Studying organizations as cultures. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method: Strategies for

social research (pp. 160–172). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College Student

Retention, 8(1), 1–19.

Innov High Educ (2012) 37:153–166 165

University Business. (2008). 50 best branding ideas. University Business, 12(12), 45–50.Waeraas, A., & Solbakk, M. N. (2009). Defining the essence of a university: Lessons from higher education

branding. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning,57(4), 449–462.

Wheatley, C. (2002). Delivering the brand experience: Keeping the promise. In D. J. Burnett & D. G.Oblinger (Eds.), Innovation in student services: Planning models blending high touch/high tech (pp. 15–22).Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning.

Wilson, R. (2006). The dynamic of organization culture and academic planning. Society for College andUniversity Planning, 34(3), 5–17.

166 Innov High Educ (2012) 37:153–166